Measure aims to level playing field for killers

Before you get all worked up about a proposed law that could benefit 29 convicted killers in Arizona, there are three things you should know about it.

First, it saves money. Second, it is supported by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and some of the state most arch-conservative lawmakers. Third - and most important - it's going nowhere. For now.

Which means that we can discuss it calmly and without emotion. For now.

Back in 1973, when O'Connor was a legislator, Arizona law was changed to make sure that each person convicted of first-degree murder spends at least 25 years in prison. ("Life without parole" was introduced in the '90s.)

Murderers who were convicted prior to 1973 fall under the old rules in which an inmate must first seek commutation from the governor and, if granted, become eligible for parole. That system worked pretty well until the 1980s, when Arizona governors started taking political heat for any commutation. Since 1990, only three inmates serving "old code" life sentences have been made eligible for parole.

In other words, they don't get out. To which many of you are saying: "Good. Killers shouldn't get out. Ever."

Except that convicted murderers do get paroled under Arizona law, unless they were sentenced under the old rules.

State Rep. Cecil Ash, a Republican from Mesa, introduced a bill (HB 2525) that would give "old-code lifers" the same ability to seek parole as others serving time for murder in Arizona. It's possible that none of them would be paroled. Ash's bill only levels the playing field.

Working with Ash are lawyers from Arizona State University's Justice Project.

Attorney Katie Puzauskas told me, "The inmates we're talking about have served an average of nearly 40 years. Their average age is 65. They pose little or no threat to society, and as they continue to age, the cost of keeping them incarcerated is going to go higher and higher."

Studies indicate that inmates who have served long terms for murder are the least likely ex-convicts to commit another crime. At the same time, they are the most costly for taxpayers to keep in prison. This may explain why more than 40 members of the Arizona House signed on as co-sponsors of Ash's bill.

As far back as 2002, O'Connor wrote a letter supporting a change in the law that would make the old-code lifers eligible for parole after 25 years. She reiterated that position in 2008.

Ash calls it a "fairness issue."

For the current session, however, the bill is dead. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Andy Driggs, refused to give it a hearing. He told me in an e-mail that he didn't want to put the families of victims through any additional trauma, and added:

"There are some merits to the old code lifers concerns. The sentencing was different then than it is now. But we can't necessarily assume that these convicted killers would have been sentenced to the term of 25 to life in today's structure. Some certainly would have been sentenced to natural life, and some may have been sentenced to death."

True, but that's where the Board of Executive Clemency comes in. They take a hard, cold non-political look at each case. It could be that none of the old-code lifers would be released. But at least the rules would be applied equally.

"Because the bill would result in some savings for the state, I am hopeful to bring it up during a special session," Ash told me.

He may have logic on his side. And fairness. And economics. But the emotion is against him.